According to the Guardian Newspaper, Wal-Mart fired some workers because they were union organizers. Wal-Mart denies this of course, saying the workers were fired for individual reasons.
Companies know they cannot fire a worker over issues like organizing, so they will use another reason. Besides, it’s illegal, and they know they will probably get sued. Workers are also aware of this fact. A lawsuit from the fired workers is probably coming, which means the potential for a long and expensive case for the state of California.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has initiated another recall, this time with Ford. According to some news reports, the Escapes and Mavericks had sticking gas pedals which can cause crashes. It is not clear if anyone has died or been injured due to the sticking pedals.
The number of complaints the NHTSA received about the Escapes and Mavericks caused them to investigate. These kinds of issues car companies have can lead to lawsuits against the companies and the manufacturers.
IMF Australia is a publicly listed litigation funding company on the Australia Stock Exchange. They recently did a video cast with Steven Glass, Partner at the law firm Gilbert Tobin and Clive Bowman of IMF Australia where they discuss the possibility of more regulation for litigation funding in Australia.
Time Magazine reported Disney possibly being discriminatory against the disabled. This is fundamentally the reason why the American Disabilities Act was formed and passed-to prevent these kinds of issues. However, even after the law has been in existence for decades, there are still those places that do not adhere to the principles and spirit of the law.
When a Fortune 500 company like Disney is shown to not comply with the law, that presents a problem for the disabled community and those who support them. Many times when people are faced with these issues, they may take a token gesture to alleviate the problem. However if the discrimination is so egregious where a gesture will not suffice, then there are legal and financial options the disabled can use.
Lawsuit funding, also known as litigation financing, could potentially provide disabled people access to funds they might not have otherwise to fight their case. In a pre-settlement lawsuit funding situation, a legal financing company would look at the case and make a determination to see if it’s appropriate to underwrite. A person can receive money from a perceived settlement the company thinks the case can get.
In a post-settlement situation, the funding company provides an advance when the settlement process for whatever reason creates a delay in payment. This kind of funding is what may be preventing a plaintiff from filing bankruptcy or having to live in a shelter.
Lawsuits are expensive and there are always surprise charges and expenses. A person can play it safe by using lawsuit funding. As for a disabled person, it may be a way to change an injustice and change society at the same time.
Capital One has agreed to settle a lawsuit regarding their credit card customers for $210 million. The plaintiffs allege that the bank tricked their credit card customers into buying services and products they didn’t need or want while activating their credit cards.
The charges were brought by the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which moved very quickly on the issue. Within the $210 million settlement, the bank is supposed to pay about $140 million to their customers. The bank blamed third party vendors over the problems with the credit cards and apologized to their customers.
The Bluegrass state a.k.a. Kentucky has taken up the issue of pre-settlement funding in their House of Representatives. The act, introduced by Democrat Representative Johnny Bell in February 2012, would create new sections of the law related to consumer protection and regulate the litigation funding industry in Kentucky.
Since its introduction, several amendments have been added which include allowing an attorney’s expenses to get paid before the funder, exempting regulated financial institutions from the bill, and capping the fees of the funding company to 36%.
The American Tort Reform Foundation has a Judicial Hellholes program that documents what they describe as abuses within the civil justice system. The American Tort Reform Foundation is under the impression that lawsuits run amok throughout the judicial system.
This is part of an ideology that assumes people file lawsuits because they want to. It is further emphasized through the movement currently working its way through the states which has capped damages. This ideology includes anything that would help civil litigation, including litigation funding.
The paper talks about the benefits of litigation funding and possible alternatives to litigation financing that would incorporate the positive aspects and avoid the negative. You can download the entire 42 page PDF here.
In 2010, the first of many defendants named in the egg price fixing lawsuit settled their claim. Land O’ Lakes settled their lawsuit for $25 million. The plaintiffs, who are restaurants and processors, accused the producers of illegally restricting the supply of eggs in order to raise prices. The other cases have not yet settled. However, more documents demonstrated that the egg producers have a motive of reducing the egg supply to raise profits.
The New York Post reported on what could potentially be a transformative lawsuit for the financial services industry. The Post said some of the most powerful private-equity firms are asking that an investor lawsuit be thrown out. The allegations are the private equity firms colluded with each other on bids that devalued and even depressed the value of possible deals.
Some of the defendants include Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital, and the Carlyle Group among other well- known private equity firms. The lawsuit, which has been in the courts for about five years, had started to gain some headway when Judge Harrington threw out portions of the 2007 suit.
The plaintiffs feel they were shortchanged and have claimed to have emails that show the collusion. According to some reports, a settlement offer valued at over $200 million was rejected by the plaintiffs.